Spatial and spatiotemporal modelling of intra-urban ultrafine particles: A comparison of linear, nonlinear, regularized, and machine learning methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Machine learning methods are proposed to improve the predictions of ambient air pollution, yet few studies have compared ultrafine particles (UFP) models across a broad range of statistical and machine learning approaches, and only one compared spatiotemporal models. Most reported marginal differences between methods. This limits our ability to draw conclusions about the best methods to model ambient UFPs. To compare the performance and predictions of statistical and machine learning methods used to model spatial and spatiotemporal ambient UFPs. Daily and annual models were developed from UFP measurements from a year-long mobile monitoring campaign in Quebec City, Canada, combined with 262 geospatial and six meteorological predictors. Various road segment lengths were considered (100/300/500 m) for UFP data aggregation. Four statistical methods included linear, non-linear, and regularized regressions, whereas eight machine learning regressions utilized tree-based, neural networks, support vector, and kernel ridge algorithms. Nested cross-validation was used for model training, hyperparameter tuning and performance evaluation. Mean annual UFP concentrations was 13,335 particles/cm 3 . Machine learning outperformed statistical methods in predicting UFPs. Tree-based methods performed best across temporal scales and segment lengths, with XGBoost producing the overall best performing models (annual R 2 = 0.78–0.86, RMSE = 2163–2169 particles/cm 3 ; daily R 2 = 0.47–0.48, RMSE = 8651–11,422 particles/cm 3 ). With 100 m segments, other annual models performed similarly well, but their prediction surfaces of annual mean UFP concentrations showed signs of overfitting. Spatial aggregation of monitoring data significantly impacted model performance. Longer segments yielded lower RMSE in all daily models and for annual statistical models, but not for annual machine learning models. The use of tree-based methods significantly improved spatiotemporal predictions of UFP concentrations, and to a lesser extent annual concentrations. Segment length and hyperparameter tuning had notable impacts on model performance and should be considered in future studies. • Spatiotemporal modelling of ambient ultrafine particles is challenging. • Eight machine learning and four statistical methods were compared. • Machine learning models were more accurate than statistical models. • XGBoost was the most effective and consistent method and annual and daily scales. • Aggregation of mobile monitoring data had a notable impact on model performance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".